HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Kennydale_Apartments_120515,
,I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Howard and Beatrice .Seelig
Conditional Use and Site Plan
LUAII-069, SA-H, ECF, CU-H
)
)
) ORDER DENYING RECONSlDERA TION
)
)
)
)
)
)
Mr. Tojo's motion for reconsideration is denied. Mr. Tojo based his motion upon evidence he
submitted after the close of the record, which is barred from admission into the record.
Procedural Background
By letter dated April 25, 2012 Hiro Tojo, a party .ofrecord in the above-captioned matter; requested
reconsideration of the decision approving the application· for the above-~aptionect matter. ' Mr.
'Tojo's request for reconsideration was largely based upon a survey he had prepared after the;close of
the. hearing. ill response the Examiner issued an Order on Reconsideration, setting: a briefing
schedule and. directing Mr. Tojo to base his argument upon evidence admitted into the rec~rd.' Mr.
Tojo's attorney, Steven Meacham, submitted a letter dated May 7, 2012. The letter failed tocomply
with the terms of the Order on Reconsideration and still referenced evidence outside the record.
The Renton City Attorney, Larry Warren, submitted an email response dated May 7, 2012. Mr.
Meacham submitted an email reply dated May 14,2012. '
DISCUSSION
As. outlined in the Order on Reconsideration, in this matter, state and local law prohibit the
consideration. of new evidence once the hearing is closed; The May 7;:2012 .Ietter. frbm',Mr.
Meacham still bases its arguments upon new evidence. Consequently, Mr. Tojo's request for
. ' 'I '
reconsideration must be denied. :
CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN - I
I
,I
,I
1 .,
')
, ,
.1
The fact that staff allegedly made some assertions to the contrary makes no difference, for two
2 reasons: (I) staff do not have the authority to waive requirements of local 'or state law,' se~, Graham
Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98,116 (2011); and (2) the Applicant is
attempting to argue equitable estoppel, which the Examiner has no authority to consider, see,
Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (l984)(hearing examiner ,has no . , ,
3
authority to consider equitable estoppel defense because the examiner waS not given this authori ty . , .
by ordinance or statute).
4
5
6 ORDER
7 Mr. Tojo's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Final Decision for thb above~captio~ed matter
is sustained without modification.
8
9
10
11
12
13
DATED this 15th day of May, 2012.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS '
As discussed below, the Renton Municipal Code is not entirely clear on the appeal rights for a 14 decision made on reconsideration. It appears that an appeal may be filed with the City Council
15. within 14 days of the issuance of this Order Denying Reconsideration. \
16 The Renton Municipal Code contains detailed requirements on the appeal rights that attached to
Examiner decisions on appeals to the Examiner of administrative decis10hs under RMd 4-8-
17 110(E). However, these provisions are somewhat misleading as they do no~ technically apply to
Examiner decisions such as this that aren't issued to resolve appeals of administrative decisions.
There are no other RMC provisions that identiJY a time lirrritfor appealing ail Examiner decision
19' on an administrative appeal.' As a Type III decision, the Examiner decision in the above-
18
captioned matter is appealable to the City Council pursuant to 4-8-080(G). RCW 36.70B.llO(9)
20 sets an adrrriilistrative appeal deadline of 14 days. Under similar appeal provisions, the C9UIts
have ruled that the appeal deadline is not triggered (i.e. doesn't start ticking) until a final decision
on reconsideration is issued. See, Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 172 Wll.2d 2089 (201\). 21
22
23
24
25
26
!
CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN - 2
, '\ ~ •• <' !"'. 'r,h-.. ,r,.